How to Work Hard at Photography and Still Suck

[chrono1081]

These days much of the craftsmanship that used to take place in the darkroom coaxing a master print from a negative now takes place digitally. A technically well exposed frame can still produce a crappy print at the end of a less skilled artist. Conversely, technical perfection (second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing gobbledygook) has very little to do with art, or even creativity. Great "art" these days is even being shot on a cellphone.

Both camps (the technical-crats & the ones who are blissfully unaware of the minutiae) can produce "great" work.

Many beginners suffer from the same bad pshop skills (hey, look... I can make grass grow on his head, no make that two heads) and mistakes that beginning designers can (hey look, I can make EACH letter a different color, and a different font).

All that being said, if I was teaching beginning photographers I would remove almost everything to start (camera, lens, etc.) and go primitive and start with building pinhole cameras. Then I would progress to the end point which would be post-processing. Post-processing is huge though...
cheers,
michael

I'm not saying PP isn't important, but if you take beginners that learn to get the best picture possible in the camera (focusing on composition, exposure, etc) first then worry about learning PP the images always turn out better then those who take crap in the camera and try and fix it in Photoshop.

Not to mention, as Winni said RAW workflow programs are usually all you need unless you are doing commercial or portraiture where skin smoothing or other things are needed.

Photoshop is used far to much as a crutch than an enhancement tool.

 

[munkees]

it took 10,000 pictures (99%) in auto setting, on my Canon T1i, to learn that my pictures sucks, and now I using Av, and have learned lots about f/stops, and lenses, photos are now starting to look better, learning buy seeing other pictures and how they did it.

Learned that iPhoto has nothing magical about it.

I am not big on post processing unless I want HDR or tilt-shift. I do very little modification.

 

[JoeG4]

You don't need a fancy camera to take pretty pictures

 

[HBOC]

I do still suck.

My problem is leaving my camera on Auto. I just don't know which setting to use. The more I read and the more opinions I see, the more confused I get. Plus when I see a good subject I don't want to mess it up with my ill informed selections...

I did just buy the Bryan Peterson Understanding Exposure book, so hopefully that will help set me off in the right direction!

Auto is a good place to start, but DON'T BE AFRAID to use full manual 'M'. I have never shoot anything other full manual, except when I was using my camera to take snap shots of stuff I was selling on eBay, FM, CL, etc.

With digital nowadays, it doesn't cost anything to learn! I am not that old, but I learned with film. My first film body was an EOS 650 and then I quickly snatched up two more (an Elan 7NE and an EOS-3), due to it being film. You were "stuck" at whatever the film was, and so I had three bodies out of convenience, if you will. So one body had Velvia RVP 50, one had Neopan and the other had like Reala. Those were the days (like 2002 or something). .

I say this all the time, but I still have " A Film state of mind". In that, I mean I shoot like I still use film. I pre-vision what I want to convey onto "film", thus it slows up my shooting. I guess all the $$$$ I spent on developing and such (buying a CoolScan IV ED scanner, etc to get it onto the computer) sticks with me.

Point is just go out and shoot. I really up until a year or so ago shot landscapes primarily. I used a Rokinon (Vivitar/Samyang,Bower/etc) 85mm 1.4 and it opened up my eyes to different styles, and thus I am venturing into different subjects. Nothing makes up for experience and trial and errors. Understanding how one setting is in relation to the other will greatly help you!

 

[snberk103]

Auto is a good place to start, but DON'T BE AFRAID to use full manual 'M'. I have never shoot anything other full manual, except when I was using my camera to take snap shots of stuff I was selling on eBay, FM, CL, etc.

With digital nowadays, it doesn't cost anything to learn! I am not that old, but I learned with film. My first film body was an EOS 650 and then I quickly snatched up two more (an Elan 7NE and an EOS-3), due to it being film. You were "stuck" at whatever the film was, and so I had three bodies out of convenience, if you will. So one body had Velvia RVP 50, one had Neopan and the other had like Reala. Those were the days (like 2002 or something). .

I say this all the time, but I still have " A Film state of mind". In that, I mean I shoot like I still use film. I pre-vision what I want to convey onto "film", thus it slows up my shooting. I guess all the $$$$ I spent on developing and such (buying a CoolScan IV ED scanner, etc to get it onto the computer) sticks with me.

Point is just go out and shoot. I really up until a year or so ago shot landscapes primarily. I used a Rokinon (Vivitar/Samyang,Bower/etc) 85mm 1.4 and it opened up my eyes to different styles, and thus I am venturing into different subjects. Nothing makes up for experience and trial and errors. Understanding how one setting is in relation to the other will greatly help you!

I agree with most of what you say, except.... I don't get the "Shoot only Full Manual" advice that is heard here and in other places.

If I have spent some $$ on a camera with a computer and a light meter, I figure I'm going to make it do at some of the work. The way I see it, I have a management job, and that is to decide what DoF and/or apparent motion I want to capture (composition) - and to ensure good exposure (quality control). The camera gets to do the grunt work of doing the calculations. It's the back-office.

Generally I use Aperture Priority, and let the camera worry itself over the shutter speed. Though, being the suspicious boss type, I'm always checking over the Camera's work and watching the settings. That way I can step in and make changes if necessary.

I figure I'm thinking through the cycle anyway. I like DoF control, so I generally start with Av. I observe the shutter speed - make sure I'm fast enough if I'm handholding, or perhaps I want to freeze or blur something. (Or if I'm on a tripod can I get away with triggering with a light finger or do I need to go to a timer or cable release).

Then I observe the overall exposure. Do I need to adjust the +/- thingy?

I guess it's the difference between :
Think -> Look -> Think -> Make a Setting -> Push Button (Manual)
Think -> Look -> Adjust if necessary -> Push Button (Av or Tv).

Seems faster my way, and just as accurate. And maybe more accurate if I'm tired. ... but maybe I'm missing something?

I'm really enjoying this whole thread.....

 

[kallisti]

In response to all the "Recommend Me a Camera/Lens/Editor etc" threads, I offer this. Comments or additions?

Never Show Your Work To Anyone

Read Only "Expert Photographer" Blogs, Articles, and Books

Leave Your Camera On Auto......

Buy A New and More Expensive Camera Because It'll Make Better Pictures

Spend Too Much Time Mastering Photoshop

Mine is this: Fixate on one style of photography or subject.


Original stolen from PIXIQ...

Dale

Oh my. I feel like I posted this myself. I would add one more to the list:

Get disgusted after spending a boatload of money on a DSLR setup and then spend another boatload of money on a rangefinder setup. Obviously the DSLR system didn't work for you, so the problem must still be a gear issue-- but in this case it's because you chose the wrong system. Time to start all over again, but this time with an artistically "proven" format.

Too funny. Always easy to point the accusatory finger for bad images everywhere except where it really belongs--at the photographer. Certain images can really require specific gear (including lighting gear), but often a bad image isn't about the gear but about the choices made by the photographer at the time of capture.

I somehow agree, at least as long as those others have nothing to show that they did that you clearly find impressive. The comments of others rarely help you improve your own work.

That certainly is better than reading Macrumors or other non-photographer blogs when photography is what you're interested in.

Actually, you should buy a camera that does not even have an "auto" switch. I strongly recommend something like an old (analog!) Pentax K-1000 as the first camera. There was a time when photography schools did not accept cameras with automatic features. With K-1000, you have to do EVERYTHING manually - and that is the best way to actually learn how to take photos.

Better gear does not make anyone a better photographer. HOWEVER, it can drastically improve the TECHNICAL aspects/results. If you want to make large posters of your pictures, then there are natural limits to what you can do with, let's say, a 6 MP camera.

Photoshop is a tool for graphics designers and the print business. For almost all photography needs, Aperture or Lightroom provide as much features as one will probably ever need. But none of those digital toys make you a better photographer.

I agree. And you probably shouldn't start with taking photos of models/people -- it's demanding and can easily become frustrating. Try mastering your camera and training your eye(!) first. Get a feel for what a photo will look like before you even begin processing/developing it. There's usually a big difference between what you see and what your camera sees; try to get your tool in sync with your eye and imagination. It requires a lot of practice, so shoot a lot. The beauty of digital photography is that you can shoot as much as like without depleting your bank account - analog photography was more expensive to learn.

I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with you Winni. What's more it is the first constructive post I have seen from you on this site. Most of your posts seem to fall into the curmudgeon category. This one is actually positive, helpful, and full of "win" I'd love to see more posts like this from you....

 

[HBOC]

I agree with most of what you say, except.... I don't get the "Shoot only Full Manual" advice that is heard here and in other places.

If I have spent some $$ on a camera with a computer and a light meter, I figure I'm going to make it do at some of the work. The way I see it, I have a management job, and that is to decide what DoF and/or apparent motion I want to capture (composition) - and to ensure good exposure (quality control). The camera gets to do the grunt work of doing the calculations. It's the back-office.

Generally I use Aperture Priority, and let the camera worry itself over the shutter speed. Though, being the suspicious boss type, I'm always checking over the Camera's work and watching the settings. That way I can step in and make changes if necessary.

I figure I'm thinking through the cycle anyway. I like DoF control, so I generally start with Av. I observe the shutter speed - make sure I'm fast enough if I'm handholding, or perhaps I want to freeze or blur something. (Or if I'm on a tripod can I get away with triggering with a light finger or do I need to go to a timer or cable release).

Then I observe the overall exposure. Do I need to adjust the +/- thingy?

I guess it's the difference between :
Think -> Look -> Think -> Make a Setting -> Push Button (Manual)
Think -> Look -> Adjust if necessary -> Push Button (Av or Tv).

Seems faster my way, and just as accurate. And maybe more accurate if I'm tired. ... but maybe I'm missing something?


I'm really enjoying this whole thread.....

Well shooting manual works for what I do. I doubt any sports photographers use anything other than Aperture Priority mode I would think.

 

[snberk103]

I agree with most of what you say, except.... I don't get the "Shoot only Full Manual" advice that is heard here and in other places.
...

I'm really enjoying this whole thread.....

Well shooting manual works for what I do. I doubt any sports photographers use anything other than Aperture Priority mode I would think.

I should add that I've done my fair share of large-format work. Doesn't get more manual than that! And I certainly pop back into manual on occasion.

I was going to say that for learning, people should use Manual, but I think that can really drive new photographers away. It's too much to keep in mind when you don't have a good workflow, and then it's frustrating to get so many bad shots. I like telling people to concentrate on one thing, then when that's comfortable move to another aspect (so DoF, then Shutter Speeds - generally.) Maybe full Manual when you've gotten past the big 'N' (for New Shooter) sticker on the camera bag until you're so comfortable with the camera that you can use Av & Tv efficiently and productively.

But never Auto, well not usually.... Though I do tend to leave the camera on Auto when it's in the bag so that if the UFO lands in front of me all I have to do is turn the thing on and point and snap.

 

[legreve]

I just want to adress the part of not being a jack of all trades.
The idea of sticking to one type of photography is an old fashioned one. It was true merely 7-10 years ago and still true for those who are already established niche photographers.

For new young guys trying to get a foot in, you must not believe that you are so good that you can just start a business and then only do high fashion, expensive weddings or top dollar advertising. You have to be able to do all! Why? Because there are so many photographers and wanna-bes these days and they all compete by tearing down the prices... lower prices = need to do more to earn a living, and my guess is that if you're not already established... you cannot choose to work niche photography.

Fortunately for myself I have a full time job doing food and warehouse merchandise photography... but since I want to do creative work as well, I'm picking up small jobs on the side like model tests, portraits of artist friends and music videos... let me tell you what I was paid for my last video job:

$375, full days work from 7 - 20

Thats almost not enough to pay the rent of the gear if I had to rent it.

So stop the illusion of being special, and accept that is reserve for the very few. If you want to make a living taking pictures, jack of all is the way to go...

http://www.legreve.com

Ps. One niche that Is nice to do is working with a sinar. Not a lot of photographers know how to works those and they do a hell of a lot better at certain types of photography than any canon, nikon or hasselblad, because you can control your dof and make natural blur across a diagonal.

 

[carlgo]

Why all this discussion ? It's easy to suck at photography. It was easier to mess up with film, that's for sure. You should see some of my early attempts...no, you shouldn't...

 

[mkubel]

Well shooting manual works for what I do. I doubt any sports photographers use anything other than Aperture Priority mode I would think.

I'd never use Aperture Priority mode for sports. It has the potential for dropping the shutter speed to low. I only shoot sports (as well as everything else) in manual mode. I like having the control. If anything for sports I'd lock in a shutter speed.

 

[The Mad Kiwi]

I say this all the time, but I still have " A Film state of mind". In that, I mean I shoot like I still use film. I pre-vision what I want to convey onto "film", thus it slows up my shooting. I guess all the $$$$ I spent on developing and such (buying a CoolScan IV ED scanner, etc to get it onto the computer) sticks with me.

Previsualization is the most under rated aspect to photography, you're never going to be much of a photographer if you simply don't have a clear and concise vision of what you want the final print to come out like before you start shooting, this includes what post processing you're going to be doing.

 

[-hh]

Its funny that film and film cameras were so difficult to get right, but there was almost no post-processing. Now we shoot computers with lenses attached, get great technical results, yet post-process our photos to death.

Actually, for many people there was quite a bit of post-processing, but it was hidden from them: it was the hand-inspected print from ye olde local camera store, which would dial in what they believed were the appropriate corrections.

I do still suck.

My problem is leaving my camera on Auto. I just don't know which setting to use. The more I read and the more opinions I see, the more confused I get. Plus when I see a good subject I don't want to mess it up with my ill informed selections...

I did just buy the Bryan Peterson Understanding Exposure book, so hopefully that will help set me off in the right direction!

I agree with most of what you say, except.... I don't get the "Shoot only Full Manual" advice that is heard here and in other places.

If I have spent some $$ on a camera with a computer and a light meter, I figure I'm going to make it do at some of the work. The way I see it, I have a management job, and that is to decide what DoF and/or apparent motion I want to capture (composition) - and to ensure good exposure (quality control). The camera gets to do the grunt work of doing the calculations. It's the back-office.

Thanks for saying this.

I think that there's really two different aspects to this that both require appreciation.

The first is that having the personal knowledge of the variables that go into a proper exposure is a good thing...as well as more factors such as the trade-off of DOF versus Shutter, etc...this is most easily learned by inflicting the "pain" of full manual upon the student.

(like that contradiction? "Pain is Easy"

However, once one knows the ropes ... and what is important - - including when it is/isn't important - - why not let the machine do the settings for a 'nominal' exposure? Afterall, that's what it is good at, and you can concentrate on more important stuff - - such as composition.

At the same time, knowing when to be ... unafraid ... of using the various camera settings is still a very good thing. For example, I revisited this just the other night while outside to shoot some 'big moon' photos:

I did a quick setup and did some shots to find that the auto exposure was totally blown out. Did the "quick cheat" to spin the one dial to override to -2 stops ... still too bright. Figured out that this was probably because I had forgotten to set the camera over to spot metering before going out in the dark...and in the dark, couldn't find that control. So instead of stumbling in the dark blind, I just spun it over to Manual and readjusted, recalling reading somewhere that the old "Sunny 16" rule (I had forgotten the "Moony 11" derivative) also applies to bright exposures of the full Moon to get an idea of just how many stops I was still over-exposing things. I didn't remember the correct rule of thumb, but with digital that doesn't matter as much: it got me quite close in just a few shots; the shot I liked best ended up at 1/320sec for a 280mm shot at f/4.9 / ISO 100...a bit more light-gathering than the correct rule, but more importantly, it was a full 7 stops lower than where the camera default settings were, and I got the whole shebang done in <2 minutes.

...which meant that I was able to get quickly back inside, before my wife was able to yell at me for being outside in the cold without any jacket.

-hh

 

[Designer Dale]

Previsualization is the most under rated aspect to photography, you're never going to be much of a photographer if you simply don't have a clear and concise vision of what you want the final print to come out like before you start shooting, this includes what post processing you're going to be doing.

Bingo! We have a winner!
Looking, but not seeing. Thinking, but not imagining.
Excellent point.

Dale

 

[100Teraflops]

Great thread for all of us green thumbs out there! Of all the specialized forums I have belonged to, none of the folks are as helpful as the photographers. IMHO

For me, photography is a passion for the moment. Maybe one captures a piece of time whether it is for a second or a century. Sometimes I know what I want to capture, but other times I just take pictures in the spur of the moment. An example: lets say you are walking with or without you significant other and it is during the winter. You approach a house with a snowman in the front yard and you think, wow that snowman is cool and it brings back memories, so I had better take a photo to recapture an image from the past. Although, one can look to the future too! This is the beauty of photography! There are no rules, limits, or boundaries, hence zero gravity!

 

[snberk103]

Great thread for all of us green thumbs out there! Of all the specialized forums I have belonged to, none of the folks are as helpful as the photographers. IMHO

... Although, one can look to the future too! This is the beauty of photography! There are no rules, limits, or boundaries, hence zero gravity!

Two Thumbs Up on photographers are the nicest people!

I have the good fortune to live in a small community that is crawling with photographers. The entire island is 10,000 people and we have close to a dozen internationally recognized/award winning shooters. We have one camera club, plus two and half informal groups of photographers (roughly grouped from amateurs to retired pros (with lots of overlap in the groups) that mount between 2 to 4 annual group shows in the local community art's complex. The longest running show hangs close to a 100 photos each year, and we have a waiting list of people trying to get into the group. One of the rules is that the images shown have to be "New" to island.

Most of the other non-media specific art groups/guilds accept photographers as full members (rare!) so in fact one can come and visit my little island just about anytime, and see some photography hanging in show somewhere. Just like a big city, eh?

And - almost without exception - the nicest people on this island of ours are photographers. We socialize together. We bump into each other on the street. We have dinner and beers together. We are constantly thinking up new shows we should be doing. Sigh. Sometimes (just occasionally!) I wish I could go out and not talk shop. "Too many d*mn photographers!" I've been heard to say....

Any way.... yes.... photographers are good people....

 

[cherry su]

Never review your pictures.

 

[Designer Dale]

Never review your pictures.

After college I had to sell my wet darkroom and rely on outside labs. I suffered from not reviewing my photos to a serious degree, they just sat in those white envelopes with the sticky glue on top. Digital has saved me as a photographer.

Dale

 

[Ryan1524]

I understand what most of you are saying, and for the most part agree. I'm still using my D70s, and getting pics that still get compliments from people. On the other hand, I've been wanting a 70-200 for a while now. Not sure if this falls under the superfluous 'let's-buy-more-gear' mentality, or the 'i-want-to-try-new-type-of-vision' mentality.

What do you think?

I've been doing most of my hobby with an 11-16 and 35mm.

 

[carlgo]

I understand what most of you are saying, and for the most part agree. I'm still using my D70s, and getting pics that still get compliments from people. On the other hand, I've been wanting a 70-200 for a while now. Not sure if this falls under the superfluous 'let's-buy-more-gear' mentality, or the 'i-want-to-try-new-type-of-vision' mentality.

What do you think?

I've been doing most of my hobby with an 11-16 and 35mm.

You deserve another, longer lens for sure.

 

[digitalfrog]

My goal when my daytime job was IT and photography a hobby was to get the sharpest pics as possible, not blown highlights and details in the shadows ...

My goal today with photography as my daytime job is to deliver the pictures my clients want, which mostly involve styling with lot's of blur, overexposed and grainy pictures, layering textures over and so on ...